Assessing the European Union Emissions Trading Directive

Frank J. Convery, Luke Redmond, Louise Dunne, Lisa B. Ryan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7201/earn.2003.06.04

Abstract

The Emissions Trading scheme now (January 2003) in prospect in the European Union is likely to be the first trans-national greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world. With the participation of the European Economic Area [EEA] countries and with the forthcoming EU enlargement, 30 countries could be involved in this scheme by 2012. Under European Union law, the European Commission is responsible for making proposals, which are then decided upon by the Council of Ministers —on a «qualified majority» basis in this case— representing the 15 Member State governments, and the European Parliament. In the case of this Directive, the Commission prepared its initial proposals, which have then been scrutinised by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.The objective of this work is to provide an assessment of the EU Emissions Trading Directive as agreed by the Council of Ministers. The agreement was reached looking at both, the characteristics and potential of this scheme. For some of the issues, there is theory and evidence to support the case made. For others, the absence of evidence means that intuition is called upon.

Keywords

emissions trade; directive; Europe

Subject classification

F18; N54; Q56

Full Text:

PDF

References

Anderson, L.G. (1995). «Privatising Open Access Fisheries: Individual Transferable Quotas ». In DW Bromley, Ed., The Handbook of Environmental Economics, Blackwell, pp. 453-474.

Boemare, C. and Quirion, P. (2001). Implementing Greenhouse Gas Trading in Europe: Lessons from Economic Theory and International Experiences. Paper presented at Concerted Action on Tradable Emissions Permits (CATEP) International Workshop on: Trading Scales: Linking Industry, Local/Regional, National and International Trading Schemes, Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Venice, December 3-4. Will be available on www.emissionstradingnetwork.com. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.315499

Bohm, P. (1999). International greenhouse Gas Emission Trading – with special reference to the Kyoto Protocol. Nordic Council of Ministers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9484-4_5

Borregaard, N.; Convery, F. and Katz, R. (2001). Applying Trading in Developing Countries – the Chilean experience. Paper presented at Concerted Action on Tradable Emissions Permits (CATEP) International Workshop on Trading Scales: Linking Industry, Local/Regional, National and International Trading Schemes, Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Venice, December 3-4. Will be available on www.emissionstradingnetwork.com.

Bovenberg, L. and Goulder, L. (2000). «Neutralising the adverse industry impacts of CO2 abatement policies. What does it cost?». FEEM Working Paper 68, Milan. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7654

Burtraw, D.; Palmer, K.; Bharvirkar, R. and Paul, A. (2001). «The Effect of Allowance Allocation on the cost of Carbon Emission Trading». RFF Discussion Paper 01-30, Resources for the Future,Washington DC.

CEC. (1999). Preparing for Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol «Commission Communication to the Council and the Parliament». Com(1999) 230 final. 19 May, 1999.

Clinch, P. (2000). «Environmental Policy Reform in the EU». In Pelkmans, J. and G. Galli, Eds, Regulatory Reform and Competitiveness in Europe, vol. 2, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton.

Coase, R. (1960). «The Problem of Social Cost». Journal of Law and Economics, 3:1-44. https://doi.org/10.1086/466560

Convery, F.J. (2000). «Insights into Climate Policy in Europe», Environmental Modelling and Assessment. Council of the European Union, December, 2002. Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.

Egenhofer, C. (2001). Integrating Flexible Mechanisms in Environmental Policy Mixes. Paper presented at Concerted Action on Tradable Emissions Permits (CATEP) International Workshop on Trading Scales: Linking Industry, Local/Regional, National and International Trading Schemes, Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Venice, December 3-4. Will be available on www.emissionstradingnetwork.com.

Ellerman, A.; Schmalensee, D.R.; Joskow, P.L.; Montero, J.P. and Bailey, E.M. (1999). In: Pollution for Sale – emissions trading and Joint Implementation. Sorrell and Skea (Eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 27-42.

Fullerton, D. and Metcalf, G. (2001). «Environmental Controls, scarcity rents, and pre-existing distortions». Journal of Public Economics, 80:249-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00087-6

Goulder, L.; Parry, I.; Williams, R. and Burtraw, D. (1999). «The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second best setting». Journal of Public Economics, 72(3):329-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(98)00109-1

Hartridge, O. (2001). Linking Domestic Emissions Trading Schemes under Kyoto. Paper presented at Concerted Action on Tradable Emissions Permits (CATEP) International Workshop on Trading Scales: Linking Industry, Local/Regional, National and International Trading Schemes, Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Venice, December 3-4. Will be available on www.emissionstradingnetwork.com.

Klaassen, G. and Nentjes, A. (1997). «Sulphur Trading under the 1990 CAAA in the US in the US: an Assessment of first experiences». Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 153(2):384-410.

Abstract Views

308
Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


 Universitat Politècnica de València

e-ISSN: 2174-7350   ISSN: 1578-0732   https://doi.org/10.4995/earn